Enomaly, Inc. owns CloudCamp™ - has it jumped the shark?

[Sam Johnston]

Breaking my own #1 rule, but figured this was pertinent given the "history" of this group:

Enomaly, Inc. owns CloudCamp™ - has it jumped the shark?
http://samj.net/2009/05/enomaly-inc-owns-cloudcamp-has-it.html

So Reuven Cohen's company, Enomaly, Inc. effectively owns CloudCamp... you heard it here first:

Here's the backstory:

As you're no doubt already aware I recently stepped up to bring CloudCamp to Paris on 11 June 2009, which seemed like a good idea at the time and a nice opportunity to kickstart the community over here (we already have almost 100 registrations!). You also likely followed my coverage of previous Enomaly-related fiascos including the CCIF goat rodeo and appreciate that I have a very low tolerance for bulls--t in anything I'm involved with (I still can't for the life of me work out why Enomaly insists on involving itself in this stuff rather than focusing on its fledgling business). What you probably don't know is that the CCIF and CloudCamp organisations are (or at least were to be) one and the same, were it not for backlash from local organisers and my premature uncovering of the ill-fated [Open] Coud [Computing] Alliance just in the nick of time. I figured the shenanigans and tomfoolery were in the past and that we'd moved on but apparently not...

So we held our first organisers' meeting a few weeks back hit the ground running with an agenda, venue, sponsors and a handful of registrations in an Eventbrite site that we set up. As we expect a mixed audience and bearing in mind we're in Central Europe rather than the US we went for a more formal structure than usual with a combination of set talks and an "unpanel". This apparently wasn't the CloudCamp approved format so the agenda was overhauled only to be rejected by the venue and restored to something more like what we started with. The Eventbrite site was also handed over without question to Dave Nielsen, who claimed it would be better on his account for cross-marketing purposes. That was fine until we wanted to offer sponsorship slots to a few specific registrants but were denied access to our own list on the basis of a "no-spam policy" (if we can't trust our own organisers then who can we trust, bearing in mind BarCamp lists are public, albeit obfuscated). Needless to say my patience was already being tested because things I needed (documentation and a sponsorship kit) were absent while things I didn't (interference) were plentiful.

Naturally cynical and somewhat unsettled by our brushes with the self-appointed CloudCamp committee (which obnoxiously lists Reuven as "instigator" while failing to acknowledge any of the European contributors including Alexis Richardson, Chris Purrington and Simon Wardley who were equally critical to its' success, not to mention BarCamp itself on which the whole thing is based) I took advantage of being at the Cloud Computing Expos in Prague and London to discuss candidly with some of the other European organisers. Sure enough I'm not the only one who's anxious about the future (of course the future of cloudcamp is looking bright when you know you own the thing!) and it seems there is some well-earned and deep-seated distrust going around. I'm also not the only one concerned about the hard work of the many potentially resulting in the unjust enrichment of the few and my attempts to convince Dave (in a 3 hour call no less) that everyone who's ever organised or even attended a CloudCamp event is both stakeholder and benefactor have thus far fallen on deaf ears. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the view from above is that a small group of people I've previously referred to as the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers believe they "own" the community (more "pwn" than "own" if you ask me).

Everyone I spoke to agreed that the best way forward would be to take care of registering the trademark (something that should have been done long ago anyway), to be handed over to a suitable non-profit organisation run by elected representative(s). This mail was drafted to announce the contribution, which should really have been the end of the story:

Afternoon all,

As you know I've been active in protecting all things cloud computing w.r.t trademarks, for example:

• discovering and ultimately scuttling Dell's "Cloud Computing" trademark
• exposing Psion's [ab]use of the "Netbook" trademark via Save the Netbooks
  
• registering "Open Cloud" as a certification trademark and establishing the Open Cloud Initiative

I've just discovered the term CloudCamp is not protected and as one of a large and growing list of stakeholders (on which I include everyone from participants to organisers, sponsors and "instigators") I am concerned that we are unnecessarily (significantly) exposed. I bumped into Tom Leyden at the Cloud Computing Expo in Prague (who's organised a bunch more CloudCamps than I have) and he shares my concerns, as do a handful of other organisers I have spoken to.

As such (given the significant lead times and expenses usually associated with trademark registration) I've taken the liberty of registering the trademark with the USPTO which I will gladly transfer to a 503(c)3 non-profit, established to further the interests of cloud computing and run by elected officials. If we're not (eventually) reimbursed then Tom and I will cover the costs personally as a donation/sponsorship.

Sam

The problem was when we did a worldwide search last week with a view to registering the trademark we found that Reuven Cohen (with the help of Deeth Williams Wall lawyers) had already done so in March in the name of his own company, Enomaly, Inc. Even more curiously, when I raised the trademark issue on my recent call with Dave he knew nothing about it so either he's being taken for a ride along with the rest of us or he's telling fibs too. Naturally the excuse will be that this was done to protect the community while waiting for the formation of CloudCamp, Inc. but I don't buy it - the application curiously occurred contemporaneously with a brash attempt by a vendor to buy the whole lot and I don't believe for one second that this was a coincidence.

I don't plan to dwell on this point (I don't have the time anyway) and my primary/only concern is the ongoing viability and stability of the community we have all contributed to in some way (even if just as a participant). The last thing I want to see is a for-profit company being formed and run by self-appointed dictators only to be sold to a vendor - such a thing would be the antithesis of BarCamp, on which the group is based and whatever is setup should be structured so as to make this impossible (e.g. a non-profit democracy).

I'm not the first to accuse CloudCamp of jumping the shark, and we've seen it all before (right down to the silly puff pieces promoting individuals and obnoxious "instigator" title) when MashupCamp jumped the shark a few years back. However I believe it's not yet too late to avoid forking the community (and yes, if the organisers don't come to the party then everyone I've spoken to agrees there will be a fork) as I'm fairly sure they plan to announce the new regime they've been busy nutting out with their lawyers at the anniversary CloudCamp on 24 June 2009.

As a starting point for the "Future of CloudCamp" here's a mail I wrote at the start of the month, only to have it moderated and deleted. Let's try to work out what we need from any central CloudCamp organisation (and indeed if we need one at all) and then take it from there:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Johnston
Date: Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:28 PM
Subject: Future of CloudCamp
To: clou...@googlegroups.com

Evening all,

There was apparently a "future of cloudcamp" call with European organisers a few weeks back and putting aside the question as to why I and the other CloudCampParis organisers I've spoken to weren't invited, was someone planning to at least post some minutes to the list?

So far as I am concerned CloudCamp is a good (albeit blatantly obvious) idea and is essentially a franchise shared between anyone who has contributed to its growth (from "instigators" to organisers to sponsors to attendees). Those of you entangled in the CCIF goat rodeo will be acutely aware of my fervour for transparency and as such I don't like having to ask for it, but I know I'm not the only one who wants to see more of it.

That in mind, by kicking off this thread I'm hoping we (the stakeholders of CloudCamp) can collaboratively and openly define the direction of the organisation. First thing's first (as I'm busy organising CloudCampParis as we speak) I'd like to get Dave some ideas as to how he can best assist local organisers. Here's some ideas to get the ball rolling:

• Sponsorship Kit to facilitate selling of sponsorships (maybe just a PDF and/or web page explaining why it's a good idea), probably offering a basic level (@ ~ $350/€250) including mentions on the event minisite, at the event, etc. and a more advanced level including a lightning talk. For bonus points offer a "bronze" level for cashed up attendees. Details TBD but you get the idea - makes it an easier sell.
• Branding Kit with logos, colours, PDFs, etc. which local organisers can use to have some sort of consistency (even a PDF of a sign with an arrow on it saves time).
  
• Global Sponsors who commit to pay a certain amount per event (say €100-500 or around €5-20k/annum) and who get a mention on the main site and at each event for it. Currently cloudcamp.com has a laundry list of sponsors including pretty much anyone who's ever had anything to do with cloud computing and their mothers - that makes it essentially worthless and difficult to sell... bronze/silver/gold/platinum sponsors would be a better idea.
  
• Organisation to take money, issue invoices, etc. but only if it's a 503(c)(3) as it's too easy to take the piss with other forms and this has significant tax advantages (read: easier to sell sponsorships and everything is cheaper). Regional organisers should be organisation members and the direction should be set by them democratically. Among other things that would save people like me having to bother our accountants about collecting money on behalf of the organisation.
  
• Support in terms of joining conference calls, mailing lists and even attending the events where possible/feasible. This is a two way street though so I guess local organisers should offer accommodation/entertainment/etc. where possible to reduce costs.
• Web Site optimised for creating and advertising individual events. This should probably be something like the Drupal CMS and organisers should be able to create and edit events without having to bother anyone else. It doesn't need to be fancy - a Wiki would probably do too (this works rather nicely for BarCamp). This is something I'd be more than happy to help out with, especially if we could get it in place quickly (in time for Paris).
  

I'm sure there's plenty of other things we could do but the point is to get some sort of discussion underway and get people involved in the governance rather than provide an exhaustive list.

Cheers,

Sam

[Raja Srinivasan]

Sam:

I am really concerned with the organization structure of Cloud Camp. At this point, there are several companies (including my employers) who have paid good money to advertise and participate in many of the CloudCamps. While we all enjoy the turnout and the discussions, this money stream will disappear very very quickly if a proper organization is not in place! A non-profit org. is the way to go and this way, I can go back to the well and get more money from these companies, providing them with valid receipts for tax-writeoff purposes.  I would prefer not to see a fork at this time.

I've attended several cloudcamps and the format (and the questions from the audience) seems to be the same. I would like to see several things;

*  A Legal Business Entity that we can all be a part of. This makes sharing information a lot easier.

*  A progressive technical document that describes and documents the questions, adds to the questions and answers -- sort of a central repository of information on Cloud Computing -- your wikipedia is a good start, but there should be information about this in the Cloud Camp web pages.

*  A statement of intent on where this is all leading to. The major aim of Cloud Camp today seems to me to be networking opportunities! Is this the only aim of CloudCamp?  I've no problems if this is the case, but then we would pull back from the various cloud camps.....

 

Thanks & Regards
Raja Srinivasan

[Jesse L Silver]

Sorry guys, this thread is utterly off topic. Please move to a different list.

[Eric Windisch]

On May 26, 2009, at 5:01 PM, Jesse L Silver wrote:

> Sorry guys, this thread is utterly off topic. Please move to a
> different list.

Discussion of a cloud computing conference is off-topic, yet days of
#Twitterdata discussions are relevant? Interesting.

Regards,
Eric Windisch

[Alejandro Espinoza]

This forum hasn't changed at all since the manifesto fiasco. That is incredibly sad.

--
Alex Espinoza | Axis Technical Group | Software Development Manager

phone: 714-491-2636 office | 714-470-7125 cell
blog: http://neonlabs.structum.net/blog/
website: http://structum.net/
twitter: http://www.twitter.com/alespinoza/
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/alespinoza/

[Jesse L Silver]

Twitter for use as a cloud messaging service is certainly on topic, IMO.

Organizational and trademark details of a conference having nothing to do with CCIF is off topic.

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Eric Windisch <er...@grokthis.net> wrote:

[Sam Johnston]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Jesse L Silver <silve...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry guys, this thread is utterly off topic. Please move to a different list.

Ironically the "different list" you refer to is moderated which is (as per usual) one of the reasons I was initially agitated - maybe that's your point? Anyway you guys need to come clean about your intentions for CloudCamp and I'd strongly suggest the words "non-profit" and "democracy" appear when you do.

I am really concerned with the organization structure of Cloud Camp. At this point, there are several companies (including my employers) who have paid good money to advertise and participate in many of the CloudCamps. While we all enjoy the turnout and the discussions, this money stream will disappear very very quickly if a proper organization is not in place! A non-profit org. is the way to go and this way, I can go back to the well and get more money from these companies, providing them with valid receipts for tax-writeoff purposes.  I would prefer not to see a fork at this time.

The CloudCamp concept is so obvious (as evidenced by the fact that Reuven and Dave both "instigated" it by independently registering the .com and .org domains respectively around the same time) that it was bound to happen anyway and can just as easily be moved to another name like CampCloud without really losing anything.

The events provide incredible value to all stakeholders (participants, sponsors and organisers) and will continue to do so until such time as we know we're successful because the term "cloud" fades off into the background. In the mean time we just need to make sure that it stays fair and the best way to do that IMO is to set up a non-profit ($89 in Delaware) and elect Dave to run it (ideally along with a committee of other organisers for stability & redundancy - not that I'm volunteering as I've more than enough to do already).
 

I've attended several cloudcamps and the format (and the questions from the audience) seems to be the same. I would like to see several things;

*  A Legal Business Entity that we can all be a part of. This makes sharing information a lot easier.

I've had to run $50 of optional registration donations for Paris through my business bank account and it's probably going to cost me 2-3 times that in accountancy to reconcile it... a transparent, non-profit entity would certainly help here and I know others worry about insurance.
 

*  A progressive technical document that describes and documents the questions, adds to the questions and answers -- sort of a central repository of information on Cloud Computing -- your wikipedia is a good start, but there should be information about this in the Cloud Camp web pages.

That sounds tangential to CloudCamp's requirements, but is certainly a useful service to provide to the community. I'll migrate what I have to Mosso one of these days and would happily accept assistance running it - CloudCampers would of course be welcome to contribute.
 

*  A statement of intent on where this is all leading to. The major aim of Cloud Camp today seems to me to be networking opportunities! Is this the only aim of CloudCamp?  I've no problems if this is the case, but then we would pull back from the various cloud camps.....

For some it's about networking but for others (myself included) it's much more than that. I sat on the unpanel at the CloudCamp Mixer last week in London and I think it was an educational experience for all present - it was certainly entertaining anyway! Something we'll be doing for Paris over the next two weeks is collaboratively working on presentations which could well be useful CC-licensed deliverables. The events alone deliver significant value but there's plenty of other ways we can give back to the community too.

FWIW I actually agree with Reuven that the future of CloudCamp is bright... we just need more transparency!

Sam
 

[Jesse L Silver]

No question the future of cloudcamp is bright Sam - this conversation just doesn't belong on this list.

Can I get some support from other moderators?

[Fred Zappert]

Hi,

The moderators' primary function on this list is to approve new applicants to preclude spammers.

We do not review submissions prior to posting from approved members.

Jesse is a moderator too, and I support his suggestion to take something like this "outside".

I was commenting to another moderator that I seem to be a "thread killer".  No more here, please.

Fred.

[Sam Johnston]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Jesse L Silver <silve...@gmail.com> wrote:

No question the future of cloudcamp is bright Sam - this conversation just doesn't belong on this list.

It seems I'm not the only one who thinks it's pertinent, particularly given its organisational proximity to CCIF but there's not really much more to say - ball's in your court now.

Probably your best option is to claim that my concerns are unfounded and you intended to set up a community-run non-profit all along... you get to make me look paranoid, I still get what I want and the community keeps its "original spirit" rather than dying, forking or both.

Can I get some support from other moderators?

Open up the cloudcamp list for discussion and then at least we'll have somewhere to go - you don't actually expect me to believe that nobody's responded now, do you? Anyway I've said enough already - over to you guys to churn out some good old fashioned PR now.

Sam

[groupalias v]

I say this is entirely on topic for this list. We would rather have Enamoly clarify their stance rather than try to sweep it under the rug as Jesse is trying to do ( at least that's what it looks like to me), which only raises more suspicions.

btw.. Thank you Sam.

[Dave Nielsen]

Hi Sam,

I've been in meetings in Los Angeles all day, flew back to Silicon Valley to attend my monthly Cloud Services SIG, and I'm only now getting home to read this email (at 1:30am). I'm too tired to respond at length at this time, but I don't want to leave your email unanswered either. So let me just say this for now ...

I was unaware of anyone (including Reuven/Enomaly) filing a trademark for CloudCamp until this email. But ... 

As I have told you directly (and many others), CloudCamp will be turned into a for-profit ... OVER MY COLD, DEAD BODY! Also, as you know, I have spent a lot of time researching the formation of CloudCamp as a non-profit (which is only fitting, since no-one has received any compensation ;-). 

My guess is that Reuven/Enomaly filed the trademark to protect it in Canada and will donate his 'trademark' to the non-profit once it is established. But this is just a guess. I will ask Reuven to confirm for all of us. But for now, I'm going to get some sleep.

Best,

Dave Nielsen
Co-founder, CloudCamp
m: 415-531-6674
skype: davenielsen
twitter: davenielsen

[Reuven Cohen]

I think the bigger question is why was Sam, someone with no directly
involved with the management or creation of CloudCamp trying to
register the trademark in the first place? Given I helped create
CloudCamp, the fact I own the trademark shouldn't be a stretch. The
reason we got the trademark at all was to protect the brand from
mis-use.

Just a reminder I also own the CloudCamp.com domain, created the
original website, host the website, created logo and branding, created
the google & linkedin groups and suggested the creation of the first
CloudCamp last June. I've never made any money off CloudCamp. I've
spent thousands of dollars of my own money because I believe in what
we're doing. I think my actions over the last year should illustrate
my intentions and a trademark doesn't change my commitment to the
continued success of CloudCamp around the globe.

Reuven Cohen
Co-Founder CloudCamp, Founder CCIF, Co-Founder Enomaly Inc

[Sam Johnston]

Reuven,

I think the bigger question is why was Sam, someone with no directly
involved with the management or creation of CloudCamp trying to
register the trademark in the first place?

That is not at all the question - RTFA and you'll see not only is this clearly explained but a [large and growing] number of local organisers I have spoken to in Europe share my opinion... a number of them even offered to share the expense.

I also made a public commitment to transfer it "to a 503(c)3 non-profit, established to further the interests of cloud computing and run by elected officials". This is more than can be said for your childish unresponse - nobody's trying to take your toys off you; we just want to see our collective investment protected. Here's the litmus test: If you're not planning to sell us out you should have no problems following my example.

Given I helped create CloudCamp, the fact I own the trademark shouldn't be a stretch. The
reason we got the trademark at all was to protect the brand from mis-use.

I personally consider progressing back-room discussions with vendors while there's large amounts of money on the table "mis-use" and I know others who know the RealStory™ feel the same way. When even CloudCampDave doesn't know what's going on there's clearly very serious problems with "the management".

Quoting your own "Are Trademarks Harming Cloud Computing?" rant: "Trademarking encourages organizations to foster back-room deals, and negotiations to get permissions. It's almost exclusively a domain for lawyers. Does this sound familiar? [...] At the end of the day this is the key piece of the value of an our source(sic) company or community. The trademark or brand identity in many cases can be far more valuable then any direct revenue [...] Giving away free usage to your brand's trademarks would be on par with giving away the keys to the castle".

So now that you have the "keys to the castle" it's time to tell the other stakeholders and benefactors what you plan to do with them - as you are well aware, you personally have the entire community over a barrel.

Just a reminder I also own the CloudCamp.com domain, created the
original website, host the website, created logo and branding, created
the google & linkedin groups and suggested the creation of the first
CloudCamp last June. I've never made any money off CloudCamp. I've
spent thousands of dollars of my own money because I believe in what
we're doing. I think my actions over the last year should illustrate
my intentions and a trademark doesn't change my commitment to the
continued success of CloudCamp around the globe.

Thanks for the reminder - the fact that you personally own cloudcamp.com and Dave personally owns cloudcamp.org is problematic too - your public commitment should include these assets as well. In my opinion your "commitment to the continued success" is driven by a desire to cash in on it - over to you now to prove me wrong by removing temptation.

Thank you, nonetheless, for your contributions,

Sam

P.S. A $10 domain, a basic logo, a few meg of hosting space, filling out a few web forms and suggesting an [obvious] idea doesn't translate to "thousands of dollars of my own money" in my reality.

P.P.S Your claim that you've "never made any money off CloudCamp" is laughable - your name and Enomaly's logo are all over it and you've been spamming the hell out of it (see "What's the story with all the Enomaly spam in the CloudCamp group?")

[Sam Johnston]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Michael Wilde <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:

Guys.... Please respectfully pick up the phone and sort this out.  This is becoming a Valleywag article.

Tried that numerous times... calls go unanswered. If it needs to be a Valleywag article then so be it - I'll even tip them myself (copied).

The CloudCamp community (given the number of people I've spoken to I think I'm qualified to speak on its' behalf) wants transparency and this response is as clear as concrete.

The ball's (still) in their court...

Sam

[Scott Shaw]

Administrators,
 
I respectfully ask for you to remove me from your mailing list(s).  I had chosen settings for a weekly digest (and I would like to retain that) but I have over 1500 emails that are from a myriad of threads and too many are like this one.  I have asked the same request to be removed a few weeks ago from one admin but nothing has lessened the number of emails.
 
Best wishes to all,

Thanks,

Scott Shaw



 

---

Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:25:54 +0100
Subject: Re: Enomaly, Inc. owns CloudCamp™ - has it jumped the shark?
From: sa...@samj.net
To: clou...@googlegroups.com
CC: cloud...@googlegroups.com; ti...@gawker.com

[Jesse L Silver]

Sam, for the second time, this discussion belongs on cloudcamp list only.

[Nicole]

I support Sam.I joined this community just a few days ago and this on going saga is all I've seen.I didn't signed up to be spammed.pls remove me from your mailing list 

Sent from my iPhone

[Dave Nielsen]

Hello everyone, 

Just like at CloudCamp, if you don't find the discussion valuable, you are encouraged to leave the room (or in this case, the forum). But please don't email the the rest of us to tell us you are leaving, especially to tell us that you don't like the unnecessary email.

To unsubscribe to this forum:

1. visit http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum/subscribe 
2. scroll to the bottom of the page and click 'unsubscribe'

Thank you and best regards to you all,

Dave

[Andrew Badera]

Dave,

While this conversation is certainly relevant, I think you'd be
hard-pressed to disagree that the tone of this conversation, and many
similar conversations for a couple months now, has increased the noise
of this forum, and does little good in achieving what I, for one,
thought the goals of this group were to begin with.

Maybe we can have a third list, a Sam-Reuven Pissing Match Forum perhaps?

Thanks-
- Andy Badera
- and...@badera.us
- Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera
- This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private

[Sam Johnston]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:

While this conversation is certainly relevant, I think you'd be
hard-pressed to disagree that the tone of this conversation, and many
similar conversations for a couple months now, has increased the noise
of this forum, and does little good in achieving what I, for one,
thought the goals of this group were to begin with.

Unfortunately taking the gloves off in public is the only option I have left for effecting change - subtlety is lost and attempts to quietly resolve the last fiasco failed miserably. Had us European organisers been able to secure the trademark the threat would have been quietly defused and the story over before it started.

Maybe we can have a third list, a Sam-Reuven Pissing Match Forum perhaps?

A conference organiser recently suggested jelly wrestling could make an appearance at an event later this year... maybe that would be a more appropriate forum. In any case Sam-Reuven is mischaracterising it... this is The People vs Reuven Cohen.

If you're worried about the noise, given you use Google Apps I'd suggest pressing "M" for "Mute" - that's much easier than taking the time to contribute to it yourself. The only mail that will add any more value to this thread is when Reuven clearly explains his intentions as I'm told the commercialisation of CloudCamp is even more advanced than I had thought (happy to be proven wrong on this point).

Sam

[Andrew Badera]

I'm not overly worried about the noise personally -- frankly it's a
drop in the bucket against lists like the Google App Engine lists. I
was simply making an observation.

That said, frankly, if CloudCamp has been trademarked ... and it's
such an issue ... why not move on to another moniker, and do it right
from the outset? Why is "CloudCamp" such a huge deal? Is it REALLY
that critical that this pissing match, whether it's Sam vs. Reuven or
World vs. Reuven, is really more valuable than accomplishing the goals
I thought this group had, of setting standards and establishing better
practices?

[Sam Johnston]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:

That said, frankly, if CloudCamp has been trademarked ... and it's
such an issue ... why not move on to another moniker, and do it right
from the outset? Why is "CloudCamp" such a huge deal? Is it REALLY
that critical that this pissing match, whether it's Sam vs. Reuven or
World vs. Reuven, is really more valuable than accomplishing the goals
I thought this group had, of setting standards and establishing better
practices?

Ok so a number of people have written to me off-list who clearly share my concerns. Among comments I've received include:

• That lawyers were some time ago engaged to "protect" CloudCamp (from us? from them? from vendors? from IP pirates? from zombies?)
• That a company has already been formed to "own" CloudCamp and related assets (that being the case, is it a 503(c)(3) and why is Enomaly, Inc. involved?)
  
• That there are no plans whatsoever for organisers or participants to be involved in deciding who controls said company
• That one of the european organisers may be annointed in an attempt to placate us and sidestep the issue (this of course won't affect the balance of power)
  
• That it is Reuven's view that CloudCamp is "his" to do with what he likes and that he somehow "deserves" recompense for his efforts (as reflected in his first response).
  

That said, most have also posed the same question you have: why not just fork it? My answer is the same as before, because I'd rather avoid splitting the community at all costs. Sure it would be relatively easy (and almost certainly successful given authenticity always wins), but I'd personally prefer to give the "instigators" ample opportunity to do the right thing.

We could probably even keep the CloudCamp moniker as any attempt to enforce any trademark against a local chapter would constitute a crass act of stupidity and career suicide for the enforcer. Furthermore, the local "franchises" have been allowed carte blanche use of the mark anyway and are essentially part owners of it - enforcing it now would be very difficult. Either way it doesn't matter - a fork for this reason would instantly destroy much of the value in the CloudCamp "brand" and I'm sure the powers that be will do whatever they need to do to avoid it.

Answering your other question, if you want to deliver immediate, tangible value to cloud interoperability then join the Open Cloud Computing Interface working group at http://www.occi-wg.org/.

Sam

[Andrew Badera]

I think it's a bit of a strawman to say that the community would split
over the ownership and usage of a mere moniker. That would all depend
on how much support you genuinely have, and how the moniker change was
handled. Perhaps biting the bullet would be appropriate.

Thanks-
- Andy Badera
- and...@badera.us
- Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera
- This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private

[Sam Johnston]

G'day Ray,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts - this is the first I've heard from anyone at Dell since I derailed the attempt to trademark cloud computing last year and I was starting to feel unloved.  I appreciate that there's still going to be some bitterness, but is a vicious ad hominem attack from a personal account almost a year later really necessary? No, I thought not.

I've received countless thanks from local organisers for drawing attention to this issue before it was too late to do anything, as I did last year when I avoided a Netbook style showdown over the term "cloud computing" itself. It's unfortunate that it had to be done this way but when you're dealing with these kinds of people you don't have so many options.

Kind regards,

Sam

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Ray LaDriere <rlad...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

This isn’t about cloudcamp – it’s about Sam’s inflated ego as  our protector…. Personally I don’t need a protector.  When cloudcamp stops being beneficial we will stop being involved.

 

From: clou...@googlegroups.com [mailto:clou...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jesse L Silver
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:40 PM

To: clou...@googlegroups.com
Cc: cloud...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Enomaly, Inc. owns CloudCamp™ - has it jumped the shark?

[Sam Johnston]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Lambert <j...@workhabit.com> wrote:

Who cares?  How is this worth any attention?

It's far more than just the moniker. Countless participants, organisers and sponsors have invested considerable time, energy and money (estimates range between $100k and $1m) into CloudCamp and consider themselves stakeholders as anybody else. Numerous people (including sponsors) have complained privately about the lack of transparency and wonder where their money goes - more than one didn't see value in funding various individuals' travel itineraries, another wrote "to be honest, as part of a company that competes with Enomaly it's very hard to support a CloudCamp if CloudCamp is not neutral" and yet another drew attention to an undocumented "fund" of unused sponsorship moneys and the use of personal accounts (you can add opening the books to the list of demands). For someone to claim ownership and cash in on others' hard work would be at best unethical and at worst flat out theft, but this is a secondary concern. However you slice it, it will be bad for the community and yet it can be easily avoided if we stand our ground now.
 

Sam, can you either stop, or turn your (btw: very talented) intellectual intensity to something that moves the needle *positively* for the cloud community and this group?  

Right now I'm sitting at the Cloud Views 2009 conference in Portugal preparing a talk about cloud computing interoperability and the Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI) for tomorrow. Last week I did the same (and sat on panels) at both the Cloud Computing Expos in Prague and London as well as the CloudCamp Mixer. When I'm not talking I'm walking and have been one of the driving forces behind the OGF's OCCI-WG and the first CloudCamp in Paris scheduled for 11 June. This is all self-funded despite none of this being directly related to any product or service I provide so in terms of "moving the needle *positively* for the cloud community and this group", I'm sure you'll agree I'm doing more than my fair share. If I wasn't I wouldn't be sitting in the peanut gallery.
 

We get it: you think there's a conspiracy, and you have good evidence.

Yes, I do - and a lot more I've not shared because it was given in confidence.
 

I'm *so*-*frakkin'*-*tired* of reading these irrelevant threads.

Then don't - the thread does exactly what it says on the tin and if you're not interested then ignore it, mute it, filter it or as Dave said, unsubscribe. There are enough people deriving value from it to let it run its course.

Sam

[Botchagalupe]

Jonathan,

With all due respect (and I really mean that), I appreciate Sam's
participation on this thread. I was unaware of the ownership of
cloudcamp.com and the trademarks. I am not taking sides in this
battle, however, I think Sam's research adds a level of transparency
to the "cloud" conversation. I also think the title of Sam's post is
enough of a moderation. If you know it's from Sam, and the title
reflects the topic I think that should be enough to validate the
discretion for the readers and not the moderators.

My .02 cents....
John

On May 28, 10:27 am, Jonathan Lambert <j...@workhabit.com> wrote:
> Sam:
> Not to single you out here, but it's hard not to: am I the only one on this
> list that doesn't care about the name of the conference (even though we've
> thrown CloudCamps) or the trademark ownership?  Who cares?  How is this
> worth any attention?  So, if they try to go commercial... so what? The thing
> will fork, like any other free conference.  If they don't, it's mute and a
> vast waste of time and attention.

>
> Sam, can you either stop, or turn your (btw: very talented) intellectual
> intensity to something that moves the needle *positively* for the cloud
> community and this group?
>

> We get it: you think there's a conspiracy, and you have good evidence.  I
> have a lot of respect for our conversations, and I think you're a swell guy.
>  Thank you for bringing it to attention.  Now let the community react - if
> there's will, it'll happen.  You don't need to be the hammer in every thread
> on the subject.

>
> I'm *so*-*frakkin'*-*tired* of reading these irrelevant threads.
>

> Jonathan

>
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:
>
> > I think it's a bit of a strawman to say that the community would split
> > over the ownership and usage of a mere moniker. That would all depend
> > on how much support you genuinely have, and how the moniker change was
> > handled. Perhaps biting the bullet would be appropriate.
>
> > Thanks-
> > - Andy Badera
> > - and...@badera.us
> > - Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera
> > - This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private
>

[Jonathan Lambert]

Then don't - the thread does exactly what it says on the tin and if you're not interested then ignore it, mute it, filter it or as Dave said, unsubscribe. There are enough people deriving value from it to let it run its course.

Sam:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  I will back off on this one - you've definitely got some valid points.

Jonathan

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Yes, I don't agree that moderation was the right way to go either.

While the subject matter is unpleasant, it was properly titled, was a
topic relevant to this community, seems to be interesting to some
people, and lets face it, it didn't really interrupt anything.

I'm not happy about the Sam/Reuven issue, but hopefully this will act
as a catalyst to help move the QNP plan for CloudCamp forward and
remove any appearances of impropriety, even if totally innocent.

geir

[Sam Charrington]

Geir,

I disagree that this is relevant to the topic of Cloud Computing Interoperability. It's only relevant to scandalmongering, so if someone wants to create a CCSF they should do it and move this conversation there.

It is also not productive and doesn't move any plan forward. It's actually a distraction for those of us working hard to "serve and protect" CloudCamp and build a community. The so-called european organizers discussed are very much in the loop and have been conspicuously silent on this issue. We (the organizers) have been pursuing a plan to establish CloudCamp as a formal organization that has community representation; the plan was laid out weeks ago. It's tough enough for busy people to make progress with limited resources without having to read and respond to these kinds of attacks.

The attack was hypocritical ("[trademarking] should have been done long ago anyway" and yet the fact that it has been done is an evil conspiracy???) and is the continuation of a longstanding fued between TheOtherSam and Reuven that most of us have absolutely no interest in.

Reuven has responded, Dave has responded, now I'm responding. Ruv did the TM to protect the group from predators who would seek to hold the organization and brand hostage for their own personal gain, attention-getting, feuds, etc. Enomaly picked up the expense for this, using the company's law firm, for the benefit of the group. They are a sponsor, not a thief. When the org is in place, it will own the mark and other assets. This has never been in question.

Yes, we hope to announce something at the anniversary event in San Francisco. Yes there will be representation for the various regions of the world. These are all pretty obvious things to do and don't represent proof of a conspiracy. Nor will the eventual completion of these things indicate capitulation and proof that the person who first saw the boogeyman is the savior of the community.

I don't have anything personally against TheOtherSam. I admire his genius in gameship; I just wish it was put to use in building rather than trying to tear down.

Sam

[Alex Esterkin]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Sam Johnston <sa...@samj.net> wrote:
>
> ..........................................

> Answering your other question, if you want to deliver immediate, tangible
> value to cloud interoperability then join the Open Cloud Computing Interface
> working group at http://www.occi-wg.org/.
>
> Sam
>

This explains it all, Sam.

The Open Cloud Computing Interface working group mentioned in your
email is presently "coordinated" by 3 people: by you, Thijs Metsch
(who is a Software Engineer at Sun Microsystems, based in Germany),
and Alexis Richardson (who is Managing Director of Business
Development at CohesiveFT, based in Great Britain). For such an
effort to be successful or even relevant, you need to be inclusive and
attract active participation of engineering and business experts as
well as research, non-profit, and for-profit organizations on a global
scale. I would argue that up until this point, the Open Cloud
Computing Interface working group activities have been very far from
transparent, far from open, and far from inclusive. Being a
Standards group under the OpenGrid Forum umbrella is a great
opportunity that you have not used. If you wanted to attract
interest and participation by posting at this forum, too bad - you may
have achieved the opposite. In my opinion, your negativity and
flamings are incompatible with your role and activities as a open
standards community leader.

Regards,
Alex Esterkin

[Sam Johnston]

Afternoon all,

As I've just got my voice back after losing it briefly over this thread I'm going to exercise my right of reply and close the loop so we can get on with it. Those of you also on the cloudcamp list will already have seen this so apologies for the double vision - the stuff most relevant to this group is at the end though the details about non-profit formation are pertinent should we ever decide to formalise our structure:

A Clear[er] Future for CloudCamp (and cloud computing in general)

Earlier today Reuven Cohen posted about A Bright Future for CloudCamp in which he publicly stated that he "will happily transfer all related IP, domains, etc to the control of the [CloudCamp] organization" in response to (if not necessarily as a result of) my Enomaly, Inc. owns CloudCamp™ - has it jumped the shark? post. The details of the organisation were light and there was indeed some confusion over the trademark but Dave Nielsen confirmed that "CloudCamp will be turned into a for-profit ... OVER MY COLD, DEAD BODY! Also, as you know, I have spent a lot of time researching the formation of CloudCamp as a non-profit (which is only fitting, since no-one has received any compensation ;-)."

Some key details are missing, such as how or indeed if the official(s) will be elected and what form of non-profit will be formed - a section 503(c)(3) created on the basis of educational and/or scientific services may also offer tax exemptions for sponsors in the US for example. I'm expecting these to be clarified at the anniversary CloudCamp event on 24 June 2009 and with lots of eyes on the details there will be no room whatsoever for shenanigans - as I won't be there be sure to ask plenty of questions if anything still seems out of place. In particular it should be burnt into the memorandum and articles of association that the organisation cannot be sold or have its assets transferred to another entity that is not similar in spirit (e.g. non-profit), and that the objective of the organisation should be to educate about cloud computing rather than promotion of commercial interests (e.g. the infamous trade association). The officials should also be elected by organisers and/or participants (within say the first year if not immediately at launch) who should be true members of/subscribers to the organisation and thus able to vote; that way if our illustrious leaders lose interest (or their minds) then the community can continue. These requirements remove all temptation and make us less of a target for subversion, thus guaranteeing CloudCamp's continued viability (at least until we're so successful that it's no longer relevant and "cloud" fades into the background like "client-server" did a few decades ago).

In order to further improve transparency relating to the handling of money I will set a good example by being 100% transparent with CloudCampParis. That is, I commit to make available all details of money received and spent for public scrutiny. So far we have a number of €250 and €500 sponsorships confirmed or in the works and quotes for €1,200 and €1,500 in catering (depending whether we go for bags or buffet - I'd still prefer beer & pizza though), as well as something like €750 in flights to get Dave there for this first French event - we're on track to break even. I have already committed to sponsors to ensure that all funds raised will be spent on the event itself and encourage other organisers to follow suit. For those who raised concerns about potential improprieties I encourage you to challenge the organisers to justify their expenses with receipts and hope that they will do so proactively in future; with complete transparency there is no need for trust (and angst when trust is lost).

The real news of the day though follows on from my being (again) silenced by a "consensus" (which included many of those implicated by my earlier allegations) and then immediately after flat out accused of "only becom[ing] involved for one reason -- to try to fork the community" (only now deprived the right of reply). This is clearly BS as if I wanted to fork the community I just would have done so by feeding the growing unrest rather than pushing the committee to put its cards on the table; I have about as much interest in being at the "top" of what I believe should be a completely flat structure as I do in contributing to something which I believe could/will be eventually subverted for the enrichment of a few individuals. Although I've been sharply critical at times (more often than I would like), everything I post is [believed to be] true and almost always links back to a primary source; this was a flat out lie and it resulted in a flat out threat should it not promptly be proven or retracted with an apology.

Immediately after Reuven forwarded my message clearly marked CONFIDENTIAL to the public list, he and I got on the phone for half an hour (the first time we've actually spoken) and discussed our differences. He does a good job of summarising it so I'll just quote him:

I just got off the phone with Sam. After almost a year of public feuding, we finally actually spoke in person. First let me say that email probably isn't the best method for dispute resolution. I probably should have called Sam long ago. It's clear we share the same passions for open cloud computing. In regards to my previous statements about Sam's intention to fork CloudCamp, he has assured me that isn't the case and he is committed to making the Paris CloudCamp event a success we can all share. I believe him.

Going forward we agreed that continuing our feud is childish and does more harm then good. We are going to actively work to strengthen our relationship and put this ridiculous feud behind us. My request to Sam is that in the future is if he does have a grievance he call me directly before we take our frustrations public, we both agree this is a better approach then a public battle.

Unfortunately those of you who found all this rather entertaining will have to go back to watching WWF as we're finally going to get on with furthering the interests of cloud computing rather than [in]fighting (which makes no sense whatsoever given we're not even competitors) or "inside baseball" according to one article. As TheOtherSam pointed out:

Reuven recently wrote about two watershed epochs in the development of the cloud industry. Given the energy and passion of these two individuals, this event might mark a third!

Given things like the ill-fated Open Cloud Alliance now have some chance of seeing the light of day, duplicate initiatives like the Unified Cloud Interface (UCI) and Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI) can work together and fiascos like the Open Cloud Manifesto are less likely to occur behind closed doors this may well prove correct - one thing you can be sure of is that where I'm involved there will be NoBullshit™

So let's close this chapter and get on with it...

[Jesse L Silver]

Sam, this is utterly off topic once again. I respect your right to "get your voice back" but not on this forum. You can post anything you like on your blog, but CloudCamp is not a topic relevant to this list. There will be no more warnings.

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

Oh, come on Jesse...

I thought this was a nice post to bring closure to things.

What did I miss?

geir

> battle.Unfortunately those of you who found all this rather

[Sam Johnston]

Thanks Geir.

Regardless of whether this was on- or off-topic, those implicated in unflattering accusations really ought to recuse themselves (or be excluded) from such censorship decisions - perhaps you could ensure this happens in future.

Discussions that ultimately act to keep the ship on an even keel are far more relevant/important than idle chit-chat about scamming domainers and given moderation on the real-time web equates to exclusion from the discussion it should be reserved for the most grevious attempts to subvert the system (such as those by T®ollSEMPy™ and CloudQueryGuy) - I am clearly not a "predator seek[ing] to hold the organization and brand hostage for [my] own personal gain, attention-getting, feuds, etc" and I never will be.

Anyway this issue has been discussed to death already so let's shelve it at least until we get to see if they do the right thing in San Francisco on 24 June. In the mean time the cloudcamp group should be unmoderated so we have somewhere more appropriate to discuss such issues.

Sam